Api resilience asset assessments dependency graph retrieve

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world retrieval operation. The description adds some context by identifying the output as graph data for dependency visualization, but it does not describe permissions, response shape, or other behavioral details beyond that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation efficiently, even though it is sparse overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a retrieval tool with an undocumented required id and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the id represents or what the returned graph data contains, so an agent lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one required parameter, id, with 0% description coverage, and the description never explains what that id identifies. It also does not clarify whether the id refers to an asset assessment, an asset, or another object. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific operation and resource: it returns graph data for visualizing asset dependencies. It is clear enough to understand the basic function, but it does not distinguish this dependency-graph endpoint from sibling graph endpoints such as assets_graph_retrieve or entities_graph_retrieve.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the asset assessment list/retrieve endpoints or other graph retrieval tools. The only implied usage is that it supports visualization, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.